TeeJay

+1 100% Just buy the watch and enjoy it for what it is

So why quote legislature if you don't want it applied? Other than that, I can't add anything to what Dave has already said in response

If you check out WatchEden's offerings, they have a blue 16610 in the budget range None of that engraved rehaut, cerachrome bezel nonsense, just a Japanese Market release of a classic piece

What a beauty, fantastic acquisition I have to admit, the Explorer is starting to grow on me

Gens aren't worth the inflated pricetag. Yes, there is a dfference in build quality between reps and gens, but not enough IMHO to justify the difference in price. I'd bet shit to gold that if someone was to stop someone randomly on the street, show them a rep and a gen, they would not be able to tell which was which other than the 50:50 luck of the draw guess, and probably wouldn't notice the differences until they were pointed out to them. As for leaving a rep to a child... If it was a franken, it is still a watch which dad build, or even if just an OOTB rep, it is still dad's watch... That's the same sentimental value as a gen would have, just not the same resale value (and I think people who only consider resale value on anything are just wankers) How about OJ Simpson's Rolex? So what if it was a replica?It was still OJ Simpson's watch, and got it's value simply from that memorabelia aspect, but simply couldn't be sold due to the laws against selling counterfeit items... Not that I'm a fan of The Juice (I cheered when he got the shit kicked out of him by some punk in prison) I'm simply using that as an example of attached or perceived value transcending the cost price or even nature of the item... As I've said before, I was raised poor, and don't deny that I have a huge dislike of people who excessively flash their money about (I wouldn't call it a chip on my shoulder, I would describe myself more as a reverse snob who dislikes ostentatious and vulgar behaviour) but if I was to have the funds available for gens, I would still buy reps to get better value for money. Wearing a Submariner (or any other rep I've owned over the years) doesn't make me feel like a Big Man, it makes me quite rightly feel like I am wearing 'a nice watch'. When I want to 'dress down', I wear my 1655 on a leather fatstrap, which if gen, would be worth way more than the Submariner, and the DateJust, which I wear if I'm wearing smarter clothes, yet it doesn't scream for attention... It's all about perception and personal opinions

Person who flashed the watch = Factory worker who performed the gold plating process, thus how well they were prepared to do their job As for the other boldened point, why should they? People are happy to either buy the product as described, or not. The dealers don't care if their terms are inaccurate, and they certainly don't care about the US legislature whIch you posted I'm not sure if you were making a joke that they should adhere to those standards, or if you naïvely believe they actually should, but at the end of the day, they are selling contraband, not discounted 'factory seconds'. The kind of standards you're describing apply to genuine watches only. Freddy has mentioned several times in the past that the gold plating on rep watches has never been brilliant, is prone to wearing off, and thus full gold colored and two tone reps are not recommended as day to day beaters, as they can apparently lose their finish quite quickly

No pics, but y'all know what a budget 16610 looks like The one thing I will say though, is I can't get it off my wrist I'm sure it'll come off eventually, but for the moment, it's a firm fixture

Greatness isn't in the completion of an endeavor, but in its undertaking

Classic Rolex beauty

Love it :tu:

I totally agree with you, the only thing I would say, is about how Rolex have updated an already popular classic, rather than releasing something new, like the Skydweller. As for the improved clasp, I would agree that it's a beefier design than the older oyster clasps, but I've read several instances of welds on both rep and gen clasps failing at the same point (especially if the watch is worn too tightly ) so to me, while it's clearly an attempt to modernize, it misses the mark, by being unreliable in a way an oyster clasp could never fail I guess as with everything, to each his own

Absolutely stunning, fantastic work

That's interesting reading, the inserts're clearly more durable than I've been lead to believe I'll stand by my previous comment about finding the Ceramic Sub a bit fussy and blingy, though Rolex didn't really need a new sub, creating this was just corporate greed, so for those reasons alone, the 16610 would still be my preference and suggestion

No pics available at the mo, but am wearing my 16610, which I just can't seem to pry off my wrist

Awesome To be fair, the clasp etchings are the only true 'day to day' weakpoints, the lack of lug etchings would only be an issue if someone was to take the watch to pieces to try and verify it There's quite a few modders on the forum, but personally, I would recommend giving it a try yourself, as building really is a pleasure

That's fair enough I guess I'll find out for myself when I built my GMTIIc hybrid project

Awesome, I hope you'll like it As mentioned, while some of the little details like clasp engravings are less than perfect, overall, the watch itself is a beaut

Not really... Folks have reported damaged inserts just like folks reported welding failures of the DSSD glidelock clasp, so it can happen, and ceramic can crack easily under impact. What it would certainly be safer to say, is that if an insert was to be damaged accidentaly, aesthetically, it will look damaged, and the appearance of the watch will be ruined, where damage to a metal insert would not look as unpleasant

I guess it depends on how hard you may ding your watch... A knock against a door frame might not crack the insert, but I have heard of inserts in the GMTIIc (so the same composition) cracking when watches have been accidentally dropped, like knocked off a wash basin onto a tiled floor... Something I've said before in my musings about the Submariner line, and the cerachrome inserts, is that if a metal insert takes a whack, it might get a dent or a scratch, but that just adds character to the watch, where if the cerachrome inserts get chipped/cracked, it is just going to look like ugly damage (IMHO ) While I do eventually have plans for a GMGIIc-themed build, I wouldn't trust the insert to take the same level of (ab)use which I would throw at a metal insert without a second thought, so while it would be a vacation watch, I don't think I would trust it as a daily beater... Also, something I hadn't mentioned before, but feel is an equally salient point, is I've heard of folks losing the pearls from DSSDs and Ceramic Subs and having a hassle replacing them... They certainly appear to stand higher from the surface of the insert than the 16610-era pearls, and I have to admit, I can see them presenting an easy snag hazard, so just something else to consider

BK TW... I don't like the ceramic subs, they're too 'fussy' and blingy with the rehaut engravings, and the cerachrome insert is much less durable than the 16610's insert

A beautiful piece, and a fantastic re-acquisition

A shocking case of identity theft Maybe I should change my name to Abisha's Papa

So it's a heavily modified MBK?

Given you want eta movement, I'll let others suggest dealers who ship from Europe, but in most instances (maybe 95% in my experience) yes, these watches are waterproof Even budget a21j reps are waterproof, so you shouldn't have anything to worry about

As Ronin said, a Fantastic casual/sporty watch